* [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP
[not found] <e2293b77-aef3-62cf-01e3-d89a7beb8e8c@murch.one>
@ 2023-04-05 18:54 ` Murch
2023-04-05 22:05 ` Andrew Poelstra
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Murch @ 2023-04-05 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-dev
Hey everyone,
Over the years, I have participated in a few conversations about various
aspects of transactions. Often a chunk of the conversation is spent on
establishing a shared vocabulary. There are many competing terms—e.g. I
can think of at least three additional terms that refer to `scriptPubKey`.
I’ve drafted an informational BIP that proposes terminology for various
components and aspects of transactions. As some established terms are
already contradictory, the proposal does not aim for a perfectly
consistent selection of terms, but rather just to establish a shared
vocabulary to avoid confusion.
Draft: https://github.com/Xekyo/bips/pull/1
Please let me know whether you’d be interested in the creation of such a
BIP.
Cheers,
Murch
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP
2023-04-05 18:54 ` [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP Murch
@ 2023-04-05 22:05 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-04-06 9:03 ` darosior
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Poelstra @ 2023-04-05 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1212 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 02:54:15PM -0400, Murch via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Over the years, I have participated in a few conversations about various
> aspects of transactions. Often a chunk of the conversation is spent on
> establishing a shared vocabulary. There are many competing terms—e.g. I can
> think of at least three additional terms that refer to `scriptPubKey`.
>
> I’ve drafted an informational BIP that proposes terminology for various
> components and aspects of transactions. As some established terms are
> already contradictory, the proposal does not aim for a perfectly consistent
> selection of terms, but rather just to establish a shared vocabulary to
> avoid confusion.
>
> Draft: https://github.com/Xekyo/bips/pull/1
>
> Please let me know whether you’d be interested in the creation of such a
> BIP.
>
I would be interested in such a BIP existing.
I will leave to others the hard work of bikeshedding every single term.
Cheers
--
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
The sun is always shining in space
-Justin Lewis-Webster
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP
2023-04-05 18:54 ` [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP Murch
2023-04-05 22:05 ` Andrew Poelstra
@ 2023-04-06 9:03 ` darosior
2023-04-11 12:27 ` Vincenzo Palazzo
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: darosior @ 2023-04-06 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: murch, bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]
Hello Murch,
It makes sense to me too. Thanks!
Antoine
-------- Original Message --------
On Apr 5, 2023, 8:54 PM, Murch via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hey everyone, Over the years, I have participated in a few conversations about various aspects of transactions. Often a chunk of the conversation is spent on establishing a shared vocabulary. There are many competing terms—e.g. I can think of at least three additional terms that refer to `scriptPubKey`. I’ve drafted an informational BIP that proposes terminology for various components and aspects of transactions. As some established terms are already contradictory, the proposal does not aim for a perfectly consistent selection of terms, but rather just to establish a shared vocabulary to avoid confusion. Draft: https://github.com/Xekyo/bips/pull/1 Please let me know whether you’d be interested in the creation of such a BIP. Cheers, Murch _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1311 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP
2023-04-05 18:54 ` [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP Murch
2023-04-05 22:05 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-04-06 9:03 ` darosior
@ 2023-04-11 12:27 ` Vincenzo Palazzo
2023-04-21 9:36 ` josibake
2023-05-10 20:20 ` Keagan McClelland
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vincenzo Palazzo @ 2023-04-11 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Murch, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
On Wed Apr 5, 2023 at 8:54 PM CEST, Murch via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Over the years, I have participated in a few conversations about various
> aspects of transactions. Often a chunk of the conversation is spent on
> establishing a shared vocabulary. There are many competing terms—e.g. I
> can think of at least three additional terms that refer to `scriptPubKey`.
>
> I’ve drafted an informational BIP that proposes terminology for various
> components and aspects of transactions. As some established terms are
> already contradictory, the proposal does not aim for a perfectly
> consistent selection of terms, but rather just to establish a shared
> vocabulary to avoid confusion.
>
> Draft: https://github.com/Xekyo/bips/pull/1
>
> Please let me know whether you’d be interested in the creation of such a
> BIP.
Make a lot of sense to me, just recently I found that
I was using a complete different word to refering to `scriptPubKey`
that only me was using :)
So, concept ACK.
Thanks!
Vincent.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP
2023-04-05 18:54 ` [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP Murch
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-11 12:27 ` Vincenzo Palazzo
@ 2023-04-21 9:36 ` josibake
2023-05-10 20:20 ` Keagan McClelland
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: josibake @ 2023-04-21 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Murch, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1862 bytes --]
Big Concept ACK.
I've participated in several Bitcoin developer education programs over the past few years and have noticed that a consistent stumbling block for students is reconciling the different terms used in blogs, transcripts, mailing list posts, etc.
Having a reference document like this to include early in the curriculum(s) will help reduce cognitive load.
In particular, I'd like to highlight the importance of the "synonyms" field: since we can't retroactively re-write materials using different terms, having the synonyms will help map various resources to a shared terminology.
Thanks for working on this!
Cheers,
Josie
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, April 5th, 2023 at 8:54 PM, Murch via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Over the years, I have participated in a few conversations about various
> aspects of transactions. Often a chunk of the conversation is spent on
> establishing a shared vocabulary. There are many competing terms—e.g. I
> can think of at least three additional terms that refer to `scriptPubKey`.
>
> I’ve drafted an informational BIP that proposes terminology for various
> components and aspects of transactions. As some established terms are
> already contradictory, the proposal does not aim for a perfectly
> consistent selection of terms, but rather just to establish a shared
> vocabulary to avoid confusion.
>
> Draft: https://github.com/Xekyo/bips/pull/1
>
> Please let me know whether you’d be interested in the creation of such a
> BIP.
>
> Cheers,
> Murch
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #1.2: publickey - josibake@protonmail.com - 0x616516B8.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3154 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 855 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP
2023-04-05 18:54 ` [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP Murch
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-21 9:36 ` josibake
@ 2023-05-10 20:20 ` Keagan McClelland
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Keagan McClelland @ 2023-05-10 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Murch, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1676 bytes --]
Concept ACK,
The only way we can hope to have productive discussion is to minimize the
amount of effort spent in miscommunication especially that which arises
from unclear terminology. Which exact words refer to which meanings is
somewhat arbitrary, (look at math, particularly abstract math), but what
matters is that there is precision in their use to whatever degree is
possible. Having a document of shared terminology helps us communicate with
one another and speeds up the process of coming to social consensus on
issues.
Stay Inspired,
Keags
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:54 PM Murch via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Over the years, I have participated in a few conversations about various
> aspects of transactions. Often a chunk of the conversation is spent on
> establishing a shared vocabulary. There are many competing terms—e.g. I
> can think of at least three additional terms that refer to `scriptPubKey`.
>
> I’ve drafted an informational BIP that proposes terminology for various
> components and aspects of transactions. As some established terms are
> already contradictory, the proposal does not aim for a perfectly
> consistent selection of terms, but rather just to establish a shared
> vocabulary to avoid confusion.
>
> Draft: https://github.com/Xekyo/bips/pull/1
>
> Please let me know whether you’d be interested in the creation of such a
> BIP.
>
> Cheers,
> Murch
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2340 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-05-10 20:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <e2293b77-aef3-62cf-01e3-d89a7beb8e8c@murch.one>
2023-04-05 18:54 ` [bitcoin-dev] Seeking concept ACKs for transaction terminology BIP Murch
2023-04-05 22:05 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-04-06 9:03 ` darosior
2023-04-11 12:27 ` Vincenzo Palazzo
2023-04-21 9:36 ` josibake
2023-05-10 20:20 ` Keagan McClelland
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox